Drones in SSSIs

[The Old Ruminator]

[Moved from 'Descent 289 is out now' thread in Descent section]

Looking forward to it. We got into a lot of trouble flying a drone in GB cave so will read that one with interest.

 

[Pitlamp]

OR - out of interest, what was the reason?

 

[The Old Ruminator]

OR - out of interest, what was the reason?

The management committee said that it was an SSSI and as a drone was a " vehicle " its presence was not allowed and it might crash onto some precious helectites. I did say that drones were used extensively in SSS1's to moniter damage, flooding etc but to no avail. Semantics came into the argument about the word " vehicle " . A drone as an "aerial vehicle" so I lost that one. I also said that our pilot was previously a qualified aircraft pilot . That did not help either. Technically I am not allowed to show the photos we took or I will be banned from visiting GB again. Perhaps the account will highlight the use of drones and the issues with governing bodies ( Committees . How I love 'em ). Maybe those images are still on here somewhere.

 

[Pitlamp]

Thanks for the explanation. I'm sure with your experience you'd have made certain that there was no impact on the cave. But I suppose not everyone would be so careful so there have to be a few rules. All very frustrating but ultimately the cave only gets one chance.

 

[The Old Ruminator]

Thanks for the explanation. I'm sure with your experience you'd have made certain that there was no impact on the cave. But I suppose not everyone would be so careful so there have to be a few rules. All very frustrating but ultimately the cave only gets one chance.

Yes I appreciate that but what could the rules be that are practical and sensible. No drones at all probably. Will see what Descent says.

 

[The Old Ruminator]

Not wishing to divert the topic or start up the row again I leave you with this amusing piece I posted a while ago.

"Remember the hullaballoo when we flew a drone in GB permitting use of a "hazardous vehicle" in an SSSI ?
Seems like its OK to do it in Wookey Hole which is also an SSSI as its a promotional video. One rule for one but not another ?
The Civil Aviation Authority, which regulates flying in the UK, allowed a drone to be flown through a Somerset landmark but requested that it be given supernatural protection.
The drone was being used to shoot footage of Wookey Hole caves for a promotional video.
Before the drone flight the Civil Aviation Authority was consulted and asked for permission.
In a letter passing on vital safety information the authority said ?We would also advise you take suitable precautions against the influence of the witch.?
One would assume other bodies should have been asked permission as well as the CAA. So maybe it's OK to fly a drone in an SSSI cave now ?? "

 

[mikem]

The obvious answer is that one was done with the permission of the owners.

 

[andrewmcleod]

If it really was a potentially damaging operation/operation likely to damage the special interest, then landowner permission would be not be sufficient; it would also need consent from Natural England/Natural Resources Wales (in England/Wales, respectively).

I suspect it was not felt that it was a PDO/OLDSI in the Wookey Hole case.

 

[cap n chris]

The obvious answer is that one was done with the permission of the owners.

And it was done while no one else was in the cave, and we genuinely did have written permission from the CAA. The, then, list of SSSI PDOs was checked but as there were no references of relevance to drones we concluded that no permission was required from Natural England. A clove of garlic was sellotaped to the drone.

 

[Badlad]

OR - I expect you were the victim of double standards. I was amused to read articles on the multiple use of high explosives to drive the new tunnel in the Wookey Hole SSSI. If that amount of blasting and removal of material isn't a damaging operation I don't know what is. Of course, all that blasting wasn't damaging where as your drone flight potentially was

 

[alanw]

Back in 2018, IIRC, Tony Robinson sent his drones down Gaping Gill, within the Ingleborough SSSI.

"Hidden Britain by Drone" Episode #2.3 (TV Episode 2018) | Documentary

Episode #2.3: Tony Robinson sends his drones to discover the largest cave complex in Britain, hidden beehives on top of Fortnum and Mason, and a ginormous recycling plant for aeroplanes.

www.imdb.com

Page Not Found

Windfall Television - Our shows entertain audiences around the world.

www.windfallfilms.com

Tony didn't bother to turn up himself, though.

 

[cap n chris]

Permission was granted for that, so you can cease trolling. Did you not publicly slander the management, as well as libel another person, before backing up your questionable behaviour around that time?

 

[alanw]

Permission was granted for that, so you can cease trolling. Did you not publicly slander the management, as well as libel another person, before backing up your questionable behaviour around that time

To make it clear, this reply was not to my posting

 

[cap n chris]

Deep sigh. My post was to BL. I thought it was obvious. Apparently not.

 

[mikem]

They were posted 2 minutes apart, so Chris wouldn't have seen Alan's reply when he was writing

To reply to Andrew McLeod, wookey checked sssi requirements first, OR didn't

 

[andrewmcleod]

From the Wookey Hole SSSI:
"26 Use of vehicles likely to damage or disturb features of interest."

https://designatedsites.naturalengland.org.uk/PDFsForWeb/Consent/1001272.pdf

From the Cheddar Gorge and Charterhouse SSSI:
"26 Use of vehicles likely to damage or disturb features of interest."

https://designatedsites.naturalengland.org.uk/PDFsForWeb/Consent/1003940.pdf

The lists of ORNECs (Operations requiring Natural England's consent (formerly known as 'operations likely to damage the special interest' (OLDs) or 'potentially damaging operations' (PDOs)) are very similar, although not quite the same.

But clearly there are differences in opinions about whether flying a drone in the cave qualifies as 'use of vehicles likely to damage or disturb features of interest' in all or some cases. Arguably it could depend on the location, rather than the principle. I'm not firmly claiming one way or the other, just pointing out that the same rules apply to both locations...

 

[Bob Mehew]

There are serious questions as to whether the SSSIs covering caves do specify the features of interest. I give you as an example the citation for Ingleborough which states: “More than 50kms of cave passage have been mapped underground, interesting not only for their scale and diversity, but also for the evidence they provide on the evolution of the Pennine landscape since the beginning of the Ice Age”. So it would appear that the passages are the only feature of interest and not the sediments or formations. I have written a paper on the topic and gave it to BCRA suggesting that they further investigate and possibly start sorting the topic out. Though a month on, I still await a response from BCRA. (PM me if you are sad as me and wish to read it.)

 

[mikem]

You can easily argue that the formations and sediments also provide evidence. Things like this are often woolly until someone tries to challenge them & then the criteria get tightened up, often to the detriment of whoever proposed it.

In some situations drones will be less damaging e.g. for exploring high level openings, rather than bolting up the wall to reach them, only to discover that they don't go anywhere - but it has to be appropriately risk assessed. OR's may have been, but it wasn't done formally, so it was banned, the wording being used to justify that decision - a different approach may have resulted in a different outcome.

 

[Tangent_tracker]

The management committee said that it was an SSSI and as a drone was a " vehicle " its presence was not allowed and it might crash onto some precious helectites. I did say that drones were used extensively in SSS1's to moniter damage, flooding etc but to no avail. Semantics came into the argument about the word " vehicle " . A drone as an "aerial vehicle" so I lost that one. I also said that our pilot was previously a qualified aircraft pilot . That did not help either. Technically I am not allowed to show the photos we took or I will be banned from visiting GB again. Perhaps the account will highlight the use of drones and the issues with governing bodies ( Committees . How I love 'em ). Maybe those images are still on here somewhere.

Personally, I would argue being a pilot says nothing about the ability to control a drone, especially if said device normally relies on GPS to steady itself. Two completely different disciplines IMO. Now if you'd said the chap was a freestyle drone pilot or a racer, then I would expect a little more slack, those chaps have incredible highly tuned skills with hardware that relies entirely on inertial type stabilisation devices and the skill of the 'pilot'... I would consider the latter far better than even a qualified professional drone 'pilot' any day.

I can also see where they are coming from if there are helictites or other delicate features. This is surely about the appropriate use of mechanised items and the likelyhood of losing control either through malfunction or reflected signals causing issues. I bet you could write a list of potential problems, and as a result I would expect plans to be be presented to the folks that are responsible for the site before considering any action, especially if said work is for pleasure/self promotion!

But that is just my opinion.